sebi:WTM/RKA/EFD-DRA-II/37/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
SCN dated July 18, 2014 disposed of without any further direction against the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 372A
- s. 12(3)
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 47
- Reg. 57
- Reg. 55
- Reg. 60(4)
- Reg. 60(4)(a)
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 64
- Reg. 8(2)(b)
- Reg. 8(1)(c)
- Reg. 64(2)
Parties
- Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd.
Holding
The Whole Time Member disposed of the SCN dated July 18, 2014 against Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. without any further direction, declining to impose the Designated Authority's recommended 3-month prohibition on new assignments.
Full text
Order in respect of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. Page 2 of 17 violation of the Securities and Exchange Board (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (the PFUTP Regulations) against the aforementioned entities.
Order in respect of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. Page 3 of 17 when its managing director Mr. Mohib Noman Khericha and director Mr. Deepak Singhvi appeared and made oral submissions. Vide its letter dated September 23, 2014, the Noticee filed additional reply.
Order in respect of Chartered Capital and Investment Ltd. Page 4 of 17 substance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the date of transaction, this regulation requires disclosure by RDB by issuing public notices in newspapers and not by disclosing the same in RHP/Prospectus and least of all by the merchant banker. (4) There is a specific provision in the ICDR Regulations which governs the disclosure/updation in financial information in offer documents after the date of last audited financial statements and that provision obligates the directors of the issuer, and not the merchant banker, for such disclosure. CCIL believes that while framing the ICDR Regulations, all intricacies and happening of events while the issuer is coming for IPO was clearly envisaged. It appears that said regulation has wisely taken care of such instances and happenings in best possible manner and thereby prescribed the disclosure requirements in the Offer Documents and for the subsequent period till the date of allotment with obligation of respective entities to comply with the same. As it emanates and germane to the affairs of the issuer, it appears to have been viewed that the issuer and its directors would be the best person to be made accountable for its due and proper compliance of provision of law and not the merchant banker like the Noticee in the present case. (5) Unlike rest of the SEBI orders in the IPO matters on merchant banker relating to ICDs (including in resp
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/RKA/EFD-DRA-II/37/2015. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.